Talk:The Twelve Apostles (Victoria)

	Australia portal The Twelve Apostles (Victoria) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Good start to the article. Capitalistroadster 10:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooooo!!!!

[1] Well, it's always been inevitable.--Merbabu (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: Re-naming of Island Arch/way of Twelve Apostles

Hello, I would like to add that the two new stacks formed from the collapse of the Island Arch (or Island Archway as it's otherwise known) are now officially to be renamed Tom and Eva after the two teenagers who survived the sinking of the Loch Ard in 1878. I would also like to add a reference to the article (http://www.visitgreatoceanroad.org.au/great-ocean-road-news/new-great-ocean-road-apostles-named-tom-and-eva) which explains this on the official website http://visitgreatoceanroad.org.au and a link to the same site in external links. Aussiewriter (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems an interesting fact to add, but would be more relevant for the Loch Ard Gorge article as Island Archway is viewed on one of the walks connected with that location. The simplest way of adding the citation is this: [2] or you can look at Wikipedia:Citation templates for more detailed citations. I would not support additionally adding an external link to that site or this one - it could be viewed as linkspam, especially if you are connected with the organisation. Melburnian (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - will look at adding it there instead without the external link.Aussiewriter (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining stacks

Can anyone shed some light on why a source says there are only 7 stacks remaining (with the last one falling in September 2009), while another source says that this stack was actually a part of a different formation? Which is true? Jwoodger (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are 8 left — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.199.127 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken news article from 2009

In support of the recent revert I made, here is some text and an archive of a ref from the March 9, 2019 version of this article: "On 25 September 2009, it was thought that another of the stacks had fallen, but this was actually one of the smaller stacks of the Three Sisters formation." (Sister, not apostle, crumbles into sea). I'd removed that text as it was nearly 10 years old; it was not directly related to the article subject and would only needlessly confuse readers; and the link was broken. I'll add a hidden comment for future editors. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally eight or nine stacks?

There is disagreement about whether there were originally eight or nine stacks. Looking at the sources, I say 9. An editor called Graham disagrees, and reverted my edits.

Our discussion is hard to follow because, for some reason, it is spread across two user talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graham87#Questioning_your_revert_of_Twelve_Apostles_edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaicarver#Re:_Questioning_your_revert_of_Twelve_Apostles_edit

This is also a pretty tedious disagreement about a not very important detail, so I leave below my comments trying to make my point to Graham. Perhaps someone can have more luck than me trying to make this article match the existing sources...

Hi, you reverted my edits in The_Twelve_Apostles_(Victoria) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Twelve_Apostles_(Victoria)&action=history

saying:

it was correct before, as outlined in The Age ref

But that very The Age ref

https://web.archive.org/web/20091001164816/http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/sister-not-apostle-crumbles-into-sea-20090928-g87j.html

says:

"In 2005, the Twelve Apostles were reduced to eight when a large stack crumbled into the sea."

so it agrees with the claim that there were originally nine, which is what is stated in the latest version of the official site: "There were nine rock stacks at the beginning of the 21st century."

https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/places-to-see/parks/port-campbell-national-park/things-to-do/twelve-apostles

which you replaced with an older, archived one.

So if you care about being coherent with the known references, I respectfully suggest you revert your reverts :-)

--Kai Carver (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, in your reply (on my talk page) you said:

> that Age ref also says the rock formation that collapsed in 2009 was *not* one of the Twelve Apostles

Sure. But the crumbled stack that ref mentions reducing the nine to eight is from 2005, so presumably not that wrongly-identified 2009 one.

So why not let the Wikipedia article match that ref and the most current official documentation about the site?

--Kai Carver (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Kai Carver (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]